Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City
PILAR CAEDA BRAGA, PETER TIU
LAVIA, ANTONIO H. VERGARA,
BENJIE T. BADAL, DIOSDADO
ANGELO A. MAHIPUS, and SAMAL
CITY
RESORT
OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. (SCROA),
Petitioners,

- versus -

SC-G.R. S.P. No._____________

Petition for Continuing Mandamus and
Writ of Kalikasan and With TEPO

HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN

HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND
COMMUNICATION,
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTION
AND
COMMUNICATION (DOTC), PREQUALIFICATION,
BIDS
AND
AWARDS COMMITTEE (PBAC), and
PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY
(PPA),
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------x

URGENT PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
AND/OR WRIT OF KALIKASAN
AND WITH PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ORDER (TEPO)

aver:

PETITIONERS, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully

PREFATORY STATEMENT
The Port of Davao, Sasa Wharf (Sasa Port), is a government operated
port terminal with a total area of 18.09 hectares that include commercial and
operational areas. It handles mainly containerized cargo, some general and
break bulk cargo and small number of passengers with a maximum handling
capacity of 500,000 Twenty-Feet Equivalent Units (TEU) annually with the
highest actual handled capacity in 2013 consisting of 407,000 TEU. It has a
quay length of 1,093 meters, a berth depth of -11 meters, 4.15 hectares of
container yard with 864 container yard ground slots, 0.2 hectares of reefer yard
and 0.6 hectares for other storage.1
The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) has
invited bidders to finance, design, construct, operate and maintain the Davao
Sasa Port Modernization Project (Project). The Project consists of:
a) The expansion of the existing port and the establishment of dedicated
container handling facilities with a design capacity of approximately 1.2
million TEU comprising among others the construction of a new apron,
linear quay, expansion of back-up area, container yards, warehouses and
the installation of new container handling equipment;
b) Operation and maintenance of the port for thirty (30) years. 2
The bidding for the Project is being carried out without the necessary
Environmental Compliance Certificate and therefore, without the necessary
studies on the environmental impacts of the proposed port expansion on the
shores of Davao City as well as the famous tourism destinations in the Island
Garden of Samal. Even the separate studies of the Philippine Port Authority
(PPA)3 and the DOTC for the modernization and development of the Davao
Sasa port do not contain the environmental impact assessment of their
respective proposed projects.
Moreover, the required consultation with affected communities and the
approval of the concerned local government units have not been complied with
and yet, the Project is already being bidded out and may be due to be awarded
to private entities who, without the necessary consultations and the invaluable
inputs of the stakeholders and therefore without the proper adjustments on the
proposal for the Project, are wooed to pursue a government project whose true
See Davao Sasa Port Modernization Project Information Memorandum (Information
Memorandum),
April
2015;
available
at
https://ppp.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/DSP-Info-Memo-15-April-2015-Final.pdf (last accessed 14 March
2016). A copy of the Information Memorandum is attached hereto as Annex A.
2
See Instructions to Prospective Bidders (ITPB) April 2015 Davao Sasa Modernization Project. A
copy of the ITPB is attached hereto as Annex B. See also http://ppp.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/DSP-GBB-No-17-2016.pdf on Bid Submission scheduled on 28 March
2016; A copy of the General Bid Bulletin No. 17-2016 is attached as Annex B-1.
3
See Science & Vision For Technology, Inc., Consultancy Services For the Conduct of Feasibility
Study and Implementation Plan For the Proposed Public-Private Partnership In the Management
Operations & Development of the Port of Davao (Sasa) [PPA Study], Davao City, July 2012. A
copy of the PPA Study is attached hereto as Annex C.
1

and total cost not just economics but social and environmental as well is
not being reflected in the proposed terms thereof.
At present, the access roads leading to Sasa Port already suffers from
severe traffic congestion, even in non-peak hours. The contemplated
modernization and expected increase in TEU volume to come into the port
will lead to even more severe traffic jams on land routes and possibly, in the
sea. This will trigger a domino effect especially prejudicial to the surrounding
businesses and affected residents of Davao City; it is a universally-accepted
truth that port operations bring about, among other environmental concerns,
pollution, noise pollution, an increased carbon trail and ultimately, health
problems for the people, and serious damage in the surrounding land and
marine ecosystems not only in mainland Davao but likewise in the beautiful
tourist destination of the Garden Island of Samal.
While the Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction over a Petition
for a writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus, Petitioners respectfully
submit that the proper court with which to file and to decide this Petition is the
Honorable Supreme Court given the prayer for a temporary environmental
protection order which, to all intents and purposes, is a restraining order
applied for to halt what is otherwise a national government infrastructure
project on environmental grounds. The urgency of the application for a
temporary environmental protection order is made more manifest by the fact
that Bid Submission is scheduled on 28 March 2016 and the award of the
Project shall be made thereafter.
THE PARTIES
1.

Following are the petitioners:

1.1 PILAR CAEDA BRAGA, a Filipino of legal age, is a former

councilor of Davao City and one of the foremost oppositors of the proposed
modernization project for Sasa Port. Petitioner Braga resides at No. 4
Governor Gregorio V. Caneda Road, Garcia Heights, Davao City.
1.2 PETER TIU LAVIA, fifty-eight (58) years old, is likewise a former
city councilor of Davao City, also a fervent oppositor of the project. Like
Braga, he represents the concerned citizens of Davao City against the award
and implementation of the project for the potential environmental hazards the
expected port congestion and traffic the modernization will bring. He has his
residential address at Block 27, Lot 10, NHA Main Road, Bangkal, Davao City.
1.3 ANTONIO H. VERGARA, Filipino, of legal age and resident of
Purok Nio, Upper Quidodo, Kaputian, District 3, Island Garden City of
Samal, Davao del Norte. Petitioner Vergara is a Broadcaster, environmental
and consumer rights advocate and a former Davao City Councilor.
1.4 BENJIE T. BADAL, twenty-five (25) years old, is the spokesperson of
Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY), the largest alliance of urban
poor organizations in the Philippines, which aims to eradicate poverty and
promote a just, free and prosperous society. He may be served court processes
at Barangay 26-C Lizada Street, Davao City.
3

1.5 DIOSDADO ANGELO A. MAHIPUS is a city councilor of Davao

City, likewise opposed to the proposed Sasa Port Modernization project. His
residential address is Sto. Rosario Street, Buhangin, Davao City.
1.6 SAMAL CITY RESORT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (SCROA) is a
corporation consisting of resort owners whose businesses are located on Samal
Island. It is represented in this Petition by its President, Engr. Pastor Lozada,
Jr.. The association is filing this suit out of genuine concern regarding the
impact of the proposed modernization not just on their respective businesses,
but also on the ecology and environment of Samal Island as a whole. It may be
served court processes through Engr. Pastor Lozada, Jr. at Mahan Gardent
Resort Co. Inc., Island Garden City, Samal Island, Davao Del Norte.
2.

The following are the respondents:

2.1 HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA is impleaded as respondent in

his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and
Communication, as the DOTC is the leading government agency tasked with
the proposed Sasa Port modernization project. He may be served with court
processes at The Columbia Tower, Ortigas Avenue, Barangay Wack-Wack,
Mandaluyong City, 1555, Metro Manila.
2.2 THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATION is impleaded as respondent as it is the government
agency primarily responsible for the Sasa Port modernization project. It may
likewise be served with court processes at The Columbia Tower, Ortigas
Avenue, Barangay Wack-Wack, Mandaluyong City, 1555, Metro Manila.
2.3 THE
PRE-QUALIFICTION,
BIDS
AND
AWARDS
COMMITTEE created under DOTC Special Order No. 2014-475 (issued on
16 December 2014)is impleaded primarily because it is responsible for the
overview and compliance check of the prospective bidders joining in the
project, and will eventually select the prospective concessionaire from such
bidders. It may be served with court processes at Chairmans Office, Unit 164,
16/F, The Columbia Tower, Ortigas Avenue, Barangay Wack-Wack,
Mandaluyong City, 1555, Metro Manila.
2.4 THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY , aside from its being a
co-proponent of Respondent DOTC, is likewise impleaded as it is the primary
agency responsible for all ports and wharves in the country, and Sasa Port falls
under its jurisdiction. It also has the primary responsibility for the ports
maintenance and upkeep. It may be served court processes at Bonifacio Drive,
South Harbor Port Area, Manila.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.
The Aquino administration launched several Public-Private Partnership
(PPP) projects to privatize and modernize several key infrastructure, industry
and utility services in the nation. Among the most important infrastructure and
utility services concerned in these projects is port improvement.
2.
The Port of Davao, Sasa Wharf (Sasa Port), was first pegged down for
privatization under the PPP scheme as early as 2011.
3.
Sasa Port is one of the four (4) commercialized ports in the area;
the three (3) others are Tefasco located toward the northern city limit of Davao
City, Davao International Container Terminal (DICT) located in Panabo City,
and Hijo Port (HIPS), located in Tagum City. There are also a number of
private non-commercial ports that export their own banana and pineapple
production.
4.
Presently, much of the banana market exports are coursed through the
above-mentioned ports as these ports are located nearer to the banana
plantations in Davao del Norte and Compostela Valley. The Davao region is
the largest producer of bananas (Cavendish) in the country with 2.4million
Metric Tons (MT) accounting for 57% of total Philippines production in
2013 and representing 78% of total banana exports of the Davao region
(equivalent to 3.08million MT) in 2013.4
5.
In 2012, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) conducted a feasibility
study on the current condition of Sasa Port and its potential new targets in
TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) volume increase and export increase in the
event of an expansion of said port. This study was done by Science & Vision
For Technology Inc., and was completed also in 2012.
Under this report, the Sasa Port modernization project needs a total of
THREE BILLION, FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-NINE AND FIVE
HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P3,499,510,000.00) to enable the purchase of new
equipment and installation of new facilities. The study also provided an
itemized list of improvements and an estimated Port Development Costs table,
as follows:
Minimum Proposed Equipments:
5 Ship to Shore Cranes
12 Rubber Tired Gantries (RTG)
20 Prime movers (inclusive of replacements)
9 Chassis
27 Forklifts (inclusive of replacements)
Additional Facilities:
20x115 meters Closed Storage Area
Fuel Station/Maintenance Shop
Equipment Shed
4

Information Memorandum, at p. 4.
5

Operators Office Building

Facilities
Wharf Widening
RTG Crane Runway
Paving Blocks
Concrete Pavement
Buildings
Yard Lightings and
Reefers
Demolition and Minor
Works
Land Acquisition
Total Cost of Works
General Expenses
Total Project Costs

(in millions)
Php
931.000
13.471
35.323
6.895
119.375
20.000
10.000
3.750
1,139.814
22.796
1,162.610

Equipment
Ship to Shore Cranes (x5)
RTG Cranes (x12)
Chasis (x9)
Prime Movers (x20)
Forklift Trucks (x27)
Total Cost of Equipment
Grand Total

1,500.000
720.000
9.900
80.000
27.000
2,336.900
Php 3,499.510

6.
The DOTC, however, commissioned another firm, Hamburg Port
Consultants, to conduct a second feasibility study. This study was finished in
2013, and was used as one of the primary considerations for the current
expansion project of Sasa Port. The study is contained in the Davao Sasa Port
Modernization
Project
Information
Memorandum
(Information
Memorandum) dated April 2015.
It is of note that this second study does not provide any itemized table and only
shows a whopping lump sum cost of the project amounting to EIGHTEEN
BILLION PESOS (P18,000,000,000.00), or more than a shocking five times
the cost projected in the previous study. Aside from a general proposed layout
description and minimum proposed requirements, there is no itemized table
unlike the PPA study mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
7.
Under the DOTC commissioned study, it has been proposed that Sasa
Ports quay length be increased alongside its container yard size, container yard
slots and recommended additional equipment such as two (2) to five (5) shipto-shore cranes and seven (7) to fourteen (14) electric rubber tyred gantry,
among others designed to meet the projected capacity of 1.2 million TEUs.
8.
Statistics from the PPA5 show that the volumes handled by the Davao
ports are decreasing, for both foreign and domestic vessels. Despite this general
decreasing trend, Sasa Port still has the biggest volume of vessels and shipment
handled6, followed by DICT7.
Philippine Ports Authority, available at http://www.ppa.com.ph (last accessed Feb 16, 2016).
Id.
7
Id.
5
6

9.
As of 2014 PPA statistics8 it has been shown that majority of foreign
container traffic has transferred to other ports, primarily DICT and the other
private ports located in the area.
10. Sasa Port is located alongside the National Highway and the neighboring
areas are highly urbanized. Yet, it only has an area of 18 hectares and currently
has no provision for container yards. The situation today is that shippers and
shipping lines still utilizing Sasa Ports services line their own container areas in
the national highway, and therefore contribute to the traffic congestion.
11. In the proposed expansion project, Sasa Port is expected to have a total
additional area of 27.9 hectares. The linear quay length is to be extended by a
minimum of 250 meters, and the current ground slots to be increased from
1,900 to 2,700 and an addition 3.6 hectares proposed to be reclaimed for an
increased quay depth.9
12. The expansion is primarily targeted to direct banana exports to Sasa Port
and entice more container traffic. If the modernization pushes forward, the
winning bidder is guaranteed upto an 80% initial increase in tariff rates and
escalation thereof every three (3) years thereafter.
13. On December 21, 2014 the Regional Development Council for Region
XI issued Resolution no. 118 10endorsing the expansion project. Pertinent in
this resolution are the following conditions before the projects
implementation, to wit:
a)
Acquisition of additional 6.4 hectares of right-of-way per
NEDA-ICCs recommendation shall be secured immediately;
b)
Ensure that the appropriate compensation is paid for the
private properties that will be acquired as additional right-of-way;
c)
Specify in the Terms of Reference (TOR) who will
shoulder the payment of the Real Property Tax;
d)
Ensure the proper relocation/resettlement of informal
settlers affected by the Project; and
e)
Ensure that in the implantation of the Project concerned
parties shall benefit not only the private port operator but to
include the port users in the form of better and affordable
services, and, more importantly, opportunities for sustainable
employment and entrepreneurial activities of the people of Davao
Region resulting from the operations of the port. (Emphasis
supplied).
Informal settlers relocation was included precisely because there are about five
thousand (5,000) families living within the port area that will need to be
displaced by the modernization.
Id.
Information Memorandum, at p. 27.
10
Resolution No. 118, Regional Development Council for Region XI, (December 21, 2014) a copy
of which is attached as Annex D.
8
9

14. On April 10, 2015 despite non-compliance with the requirements of the
aforementioned resolution, the DOTC proceeded to issue the notice of public
bidding on the project entitled P17B Davao Sasa Port Modernization. 11
15.
Also as of issuance of the notice of public bidding and even at present,
the DOTC has yet to comply with the requirements of Section 27 of the 1991
Local Government Code (LGC), which mandates prior consultation and public
hearings mentioned in Section 26 and prior approval of the project by the
sanggunian concerned. In fact, the Davao City Council has passed by
unanimous vote Resolution No. 02573-15 Series of 2015 dated 14 December
2015 entitled Expressing the Objection of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Davao on the Irregular Procedure as well as the Various Questions Raised
Against the Sasa Port Modernization Project Now Being Bidded Out Without
Prior Consultation and Expressed Approval of the Local Government as
Provided for by the Local Government Code.12
16. On August 28, 2015, various sectors represented by Tagum Agricultural
Development Co., Inc. (TADECO), Davao International Container Terminal
(DICT) and Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association (PBGEA)
sent a strongly-worded letter to Governor Rodolfo Del Rosario of Davao
Province expressing concerns regarding the DOTCs non-compliance with
Resolution No. 118 previously issued by the Regional Development Council,
among others. The letter enumerates irregularities plaguing the project, namely
the previously mentioned non-compliance with the LGC, the inexplicable
conduct of the DOTCs second feasibility study by a finance group instead of a
ports specialist group and the omission of the potential of cruise tourism in the
consideration of the project. The letter also stresses the fact that other ports
nearer and more accessible to the banana markets exist and are operational, and
question once again the DOTCs insistence of converting Sasa Port into a
cargo port for banana exports.13
17. This same letter also points out the existence of the P2.9 billion Viability
Guarantee Fund (VGF), alleged to be a government guarantee. It also stresses
the lack of transparency from the side of the DOTC.
18. Another important concern raised before Governor Del Rosario by the
housing and subdivision development sectors represented by Maryline Lim,
chairman of the Organization of Socialized Housing Developers Association of
the Philippines (OSHDAP) and Kristin Lu, President of Subdivision Housing
Developers Association (SHDA) is the Projects intended conversion of the
port into purely containerized commercial operation that will severely affect the
housing sector since their materials are classified as bulk cargo or break bulk,
which is not containerized. The same is true for other agricultural products
being shipped at the Sasa port. If Sasa Port is converted into a purely container
terminal, these shipments cannot anymore use the only public port in Davao
A copy of the Invitation to Pore-Qualify and Bid is attached hereto as Annex E.
An original copy of the resolution is attached hereto as Annex F.
13
A copy of the letter is attached as Annex G.
11
12

City and may be refused or may not be readily accommodated by the private
commercial ports in the region to their owners great damage and prejudice.
19. Another problematic area pointed out in the abovementioned letter was
the purported increase in port charges and fees that would be allowed to the
winning bidder of the project.
20. As of the filing of this petition, the DOTC also has yet to obtain an
Environmental Compliance Certificate 14 for the proposed project as required
under Presidential Decree 1586.
GROUNDS FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF A WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
AND/OR THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN
I.
THE DAVAO SASA PORT MODERNIZATION
PROJECT THAT ENTAILS THE REHABILITATION,
DEVELOPMENT, EXPANSION OF AND INCREASE
IN THE PORT OPERATIONS AS IMPLEMENTED BY
THE BIDDING PROCESS BEING CONDUCTED BY
THE RESPONDENTS WILL VIOLATE THE RIGHT
OF THE PETITIONERS AND THE FILIPINO PEOPLE
TO HEALTH AND A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL
ECOLOGY AS ENSHRINED IN SECTIONS 15 AND 16
OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
II.
THE DAVAO SASA PORT MODERNIZATION
PROJECT THAT ENTAILS THE REHABILITATION,
DEVELOPMENT, EXPANSION OF AND INCREASE
IN THE PORT OPERATIONS AS IMPLEMENTED BY
THE BIDDING PROCESS BEING CONDUCTED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
PHILIPPINE
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
STATEMENT SYSTEM AS THE RESPONDENTS
FAILED
TO
UNDERGO
THE
NECESSARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS
AND SECURE THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE.

Petitioners counsel has written a letter to the EMB for a written confirmation of earlier
information received by its clients from the Regional Office that no ECC has been applied and
issued for the Davao Sasa Port Modernization Project. EMB has yet to issue its reply.
14

III.
THE DAVAO SASA PORT MODERNIZATION
PROJECT THAT ENTAILS THE REHABILITATION,
DEVELOPMENT, EXPANSION OF AND INCREASE
IN THE PORT OPERATIONS AS IMPLEMENTED BY
THE BIDDING PROCESS BEING CONDUCTED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IS VIOLATIVE OF SECTIONS 26
AND 27 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF
1991 AND THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONERS AND
THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF
PUBLIC CONCERN.
IV.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CALL FOR
THE APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE AND THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDER (TEPO).
DISCUSSION

Violation of the Right To Health and a

Healthy and Balanced Ecology
21. Sections 15 and 16 of the 1987 Constitution provide that the people have a
right to health and the right to a healthy and balanced ecology with the state
being tasked with the affirmative duty to promote and advance such
compelling state interests15. In compliance with such duty, the Supreme Court
even promulgated its own set of rules on the procedure for environmental
cases16.
22. Respondents on the other hand, instead of observing such duty, have begun
the process of transgressing the Petitioners and the peoples right to health and
a balanced ecology with the bidding process that they are undertaking and the
consequent award and implementation of the proposed port expansion subject
of this case.
23. In connection with port operations, a special study was made for the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development on the impacts of
the operations of port cities. In The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities:
Synthesis Report (Synthesis Report)17, four major negative impacts were
listed related to port activities. These are: 1) environmental impacts; 2) land use
See Leonen, J. Dissenting Opinion in International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Inc. (G.R. No. 209271; 8 December 2015)
16
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
17
At
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Competitiveness-of-Global-Port-CitiesSynthesis-Report.pdf (last accessed on 2 March 2016).
15

10

impacts; 3) traffic impacts; and 4) other impacts.18 On the environment, the

impacts are within the field of air emissions, water quality, soil, waste,
biodiversity, noise and other impacts. These environmental impacts can have
severe consequences for the health of the population of the port-city, especially
for the poorer parts of port-cities.19
24. According to the Synthesis Report, most of these impacts are localized and
affect the surrounding localities to wit:

2.2.5 Where do the negative impacts take place?

Port impacts have generally become sub-urbanised, as many port

sites have relocated from city centres. Port relocations and gradual
spatial disintegration of ports and cities over time have taken
place in many countries and have had a profound influence on
port impacts. Remaining port functions near highly populated
areas have become constrained by limited acceptance by the
population of negative impacts. However, there is a large variety
between port-cities. As ports are capital intensive, port relocations
can in many cases not immediately take place and have in many
cases been a gradual shift, through new terminal development
away from city development. Several ports have thus developed
on multiple sites, which adds a new layer of complexity in terms
of disintegration of positive and negative impacts. Port lay out
also is important, as the boundary of the port area with the city
could be considered the area were most of the environmental
impacts take place. If this boundary touches a large population
concentration, the intensity of port impacts will evidently be
larger. Finally, there is also a governance component to this
discussion, when most of the impacts touch surrounding
municipalities, which would imply a metropolitan or
regional approach to these impacts.
The effects of pollution, dust and noise are all very localised
and most of the congestion costs occur close to the ports.
Other regions are also subject to the negative impacts of the
hinterland transport of port cargo to or from their region, but
these effects are more diluted than the impacts in the port-city.
Moreover, there is a large skewedness with respect to the negative
impacts; large port-cities can be considered environmental
hotspots. According to our estimates the largest 25 ports in the
world account for around half of the shipping emissions in all
ports in the world (Merk, 2012). So there is a large difference in
negative port-city impacts depending on port size. Other
environmental impacts from shipping are evidently global
impacts, and many of these actually take place at sea, but these

18
19

At pp. 32-42.
At p. 32.
11

impacts become particularly evident in port-cities.20 (Emphasis

supplied)
25. In the Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
together with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior and Local
Government, among others, have come up with its Managing Impacts of
Development in the Coastal Zone (Managing Impacts)21 where it identified
the effects of coastal construction and reclamation, including ports and
offshore moorings.22
26. According to Managing Impacts, Coastal construction has been the most
widespread of activities affecting coastal resources23 since Any construction
that modifies the shoreline will invariably change currents, wave action, tidal
fluctuations, and the transport of sediments along the coast 24 while Coastal
construction that restricts the circulation of coastal water bodies can also
degrade water qualify and coastal ecosystems.25
27. Considering the Project involved in this case, all the foregoing
environmental pollution and concerns will be affecting the petitioners and the
people of Davao region if the bidding process and the Projects
implementation is not stopped.

Violation of the Philippine Environmental

Impact Statement System
28. Opposite the Davao City (Sasa) Port and separated by a narrow strait is the
Island City of Samal which, like Boracay in Malay, Aklan, is a world famous
tourist destination. As such, the effects on the said island of the port expansion
and the increased shipping traffic cannot be ignored. Thus, the same
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of
Aklan26, is applicable in this case to wit:
Any impact on the Boracay side cannot be totally ignored,
as Caticlan and Boracay are separated only by a narrow strait. This
becomes more imperative because of the significant contributions
of Boracays white-sand beach to the countrys tourism trade,
which requires respondent Province to proceed with utmost
caution in implementing projects within its vicinity.

At pp. 42-43.
See http://oneocean.org/download/db_files/crmguidebook7.pdf (last accessed on 2 March
2016).
22
At pp. 41-45.
23
At p. 42.
24
At p. 43.
25
At p. 43.
26
G.R. No. 196870; 26 June 2012.
20
21

12

29. With such well-established negative environmental effects of any port

activity, the least that the Respondents could have done was to study the
possible negative environmental impacts of the proposed port expansion
project through an environmental impact assessment.
30. Respondent PPA has even seen the need therefor when it contracted the
services of Science and Vision for Technology, Inc. 27 for its own study on the
Conduct of Feasibility and Implementation Plan for the Proposed PublicPrivate Partnership in the Management, Operations and Development of the
Port of Davao (Sasa), Davao City when it charged said consultant with,
among others, the following:
2.01.6
EXAMINATION

INITIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

1. Undertake Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) of the

impact of the proposed development, if any, under the PPP
Program/Plan, to include but not limited to:
- Impact relating to the project location
- Impact during construction
- Impact during port operation
2. Such IEEs shall be undertaken in preparation, if and were
warranted, for any recommended full-blown Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) required under Philippine laws,
policies, rules and regulations of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) and other concerned government
agencies.
3. The results of such IEEs shall be submitted together with the
Draft Final Report.
31. Unfortunately, even the PPA Study does not contain the foregoing required
initial environmental examination.
32. Moreover, when Respondent DOTC came up with its own study as
contained in the Davao Sasa Port Modernization Project Information
Memorandum, it appears that the environmental impacts of the proposed
project were not assessed and no recommendations to mitigate the same were
reported (at least from the dearth of materials available to Petitioners regarding
the Project). There is nothing in the Information Memorandum that even deals
with the environmental concerns that may be casued by or incidental to
Project.

27

http://www.ppa.com.ph/bidding/head%20office/2012/12_0216%20Contract%20Davao%20SA
SA%20(H.O.).pdf (last accessed on 29 February 2016).
13

33. Respondents have not likewise applied for and secured an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the Project as required under the
Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS) under Presidential
Decree No. 1586. The proposed port expansion with the capacity for
containerized cargo being more than doubled as compared to current capacity
and operations is certainly covered by the PEISS and is considered to be a
project within an environmentally critical area. This is evident from the Revised
Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-30 of the DENR which lists sea port,
causeways and harbors under Group II which are Non-Environmentally
Critical Projects in Environmentally Critical Areas. 28
34. In Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan29, the DENR Regional Office
involved in the said case admitted that a jetty port, being within a water body, is
necessarily within an environmentally critical area, to wit:
Respondent DENR-EMB RVI stresses that the declaration
in 1978 of several islands, which includes Boracay as tourist zone
and marine reserve under Proclamation No. 1801, has no
relevance to the expansion project of Caticlan Jetty Port and
Passenger Terminal for the very reason that the project is not
located in the Island of Boracay, being located in Barangay
Caticlan, Malay, which is not a part of mainland Panay. It admits
that the site of the subject jetty port falls within the ECA
under Proclamation No. 2146 (1981), being within the category
of a water body. This was why respondent Province had
faithfully secured an ECC pursuant to the Revised Procedural
Manual for DENR DAO 2003-30 by submitting the necessary
documents as contained in the EPRMP on March 19, 2010, which
were the bases in granting ECC No. R6-1003-096-7100
(amended) on April 27, 2010 for the expansion of Caticlan Jetty
Port and Passenger Terminal, covering 2.64 hectares. (Emphasis
supplied)
35. Given the foregoing, Respondents are required to go through the process
of environmental impact assessment and secure an ECC.
36. Moreover, in the conduct of an EIA in connection with the application for
an ECC, the proponent is required to determine whether there are viable
alternatives30 to the proposed Project. In this case, there exist at least three (3)
other commercial ports near the vicinity of the Davao Sasa Port aside from
other non-commercial ports in the area. The commercial ports are (1) Tefasco
located toward the northern city limit of Davao City; (2) Davao International
Container Terminal located in Panabo City; and (3) Hijo International Port in
Tagum City all within an 80 kilometer radius from the downtown center of
Davao City. These are described in the Information Memorandum as follows:
At p. 51.
G.R. No. 196870; 26 June 2012.
30
Section 4 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 1151.
28
29

14

DICT is Mindanao regions most up-to-date container

terminal covering an area of 8.1 ha and furnished with modern
terminal handling equipment. DICT has two ship-to-shore cranes,
three reach stackers, five empty container handling equipment, 18
terminal tractors/prime movers and state-of-the-art Terminal
Operations System (TOS). The terminal has an average draft of
15 meters that can accommodate Panamax vessels, as well as,
reefer plug-in facilities to support the export of perishable items
such as bananas. The project has been initiated by the Anflocor
conglomerate. The terminal started operations in May 2013 and
has handled around 228,000 TEUs in 2014 and is expected to
achieve their annual target of 250 thousand TEUs in 2015.
Hijo International Port (HIP) is located in the Davao Gulf,
south of the city of Tagum. International Container Terminal
Services Inc. (ICTSI) has announced plans to develop HIP and
has acquired a 65% controlling stake in Hijo International Port
Services, Inc. Resources Group, owner and developer of HIP.
The port is intended to be developed into a modern large
container terminal with 12 Panamax STS gantry cranes, 36 rubber
tired gantries, a total berth length of 1,200 m and total terminal
area of 50 ha in its final stage. The development will most likely
be carried out in phases with Phase 1 to be completed by 2015. 31
37. With the foregoing alternatives especially considering that most of the
banana and fruit exports of the Davao region come from the north of Davao
City where these two (2) alternative ports are located, the necessity and
desirability of the expansion and modernization of the Davao Sasa Port is put
into serious question. This is especially true given the trend in development
global ports where:
Port impacts have generally become sub-urbanised, as many port
sites have relocated from city centres. Remaining port
functions near highly populated areas have become constrained
by limited acceptance by the population of negative impacts.
However, there is a large variety between port-cities. As ports are
capital intensive, port relocations can in many cases not
immediately take place and have in many cases been a gradual
shift, through new terminal development away from city
development32 (Emphasis supplied)

31
32

At p. 10.
Synthesis Report, at p. 42.
15

Violation of the Right to Public

Participation, Prior Approval and Right to
Information on Matters of Public Concern
38. Aside from the failure to comply with the requirements under the PEISS,
Respondents have also failed to comply with the requirements under Sections
26 and 27 of the Local Government Code of prior consultations and prior
approval of the local government.
39. This doctrine has been clearly enunciated by the Honorable Court in the
afore-mentioned case of Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan, to wit:
The Local Government Code establishes the duties
of national government agencies in the maintenance of ecological
balance, and requires them to secure prior public consultation and
approval of local government units for the projects described
therein.
In the case before us, the national agency involved is
respondent PRA. Even if the project proponent is the local
government of Aklan, it is respondent PRA which authorized the
reclamation, being the exclusive agency of the government to
undertake reclamation nationwide. Hence, it was necessary for
respondent Province to go through respondent PRA and to
execute a MOA, wherein respondent PRAs authority to reclaim
was delegated to respondent Province. Respondent DENR-EMB
RVI, regional office of the DENR, is also a national government
institution which is tasked with the issuance of the ECC that is a
prerequisite to projects covered by environmental laws such as the
one at bar.
This project can be classified as a national project that
affects the environmental and ecological balance of local
communities, and is covered by the requirements found in the
Local Government Code provisions that are quoted below:

of National Government
Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological
Balance. - It shall be the duty of every national
Section

26. Duty

agency or government-owned or controlled

corporation authorizing or involved in the planning
and implementation of any project or program that
may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of
non-renewable resources, loss of crop land,
rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal
or plant species, to consult with the local
government units, nongovernmental organizations,
and other sectors concerned and explain the goals
and objectives of the project or program, its impact
16

upon the people and the community in terms of

environmental or ecological balance, and the
measures that will be undertaken to prevent or
minimize the adverse effects thereof.
Section 27. Prior Consultations Required. - No
project or program shall be implemented by
government authorities unless the consultations
mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are
complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian
concerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants in
areas where such projects are to be implemented
shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation
sites have been provided, in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.
In Lina, Jr. v. Pao, we held that Section 27 of the Local
Government Code applies only to national programs and/or
projects which are to be implemented in a particular local
community and that it should be read in conjunction with
Section 26. We held further in this manner:
Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in
Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects
and programs whose effects are among those
enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those that:
(1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about
climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of nonrenewable resources; (4) may result in loss of crop
land, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may eradicate
certain animal or plant species from the face of the
planet; and (6) other projects or programs that may
call for the eviction of a particular group of people
residing in the locality where these will be
implemented. Obviously, none of these effects will
be produced by the introduction of lotto in the
province of Laguna. (Emphasis added.)
During the oral arguments held on September 13, 2011, it
was established that this project as described above falls under
Section 26 because the commercial establishments to be built on
phase 1, as described in the EPRMP quoted above, could cause
pollution as it could generate garbage, sewage, and possible toxic
fuel discharge.
Our ruling in Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary is
instructive:

17

We reiterated this doctrine in the recent case

of Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas, where we held
that there was no statutory requirement for
the sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to approve the
construction of a mooring facility, as Sections 26 and
27 are inapplicable to projects which are not
environmentally critical.
Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the
powers, duties and functions of the municipality,
grants the sangguniang bayan the power to, among
other things, enact ordinances, approve resolutions
and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the
municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section
16 of th(e) Code. These include:
(1)
Approving
ordinances
and
passing
resolutions to protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment, such as dynamite fishing and other
forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and
smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources
products and of endangered species of flora and
fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other
activities which result in pollution, acceleration of
eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological
imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)]
(2)
Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints
on the use of property within the jurisdiction of the
municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use
plan for the municipality, reclassifying land within
the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent
provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning
ordinances in consonance with the approved
comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing
laws, rules and regulations; establishing fire limits or
zones, particularly in populous centers; and
regulating the construction, repair or modification of
buildings within said fire limits or zones in
accordance with the provisions of this Code;
[Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)]
(3)
Approving ordinances which shall ensure the
efficient and effective delivery of the basic services
and facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this
Code, and in addition to said services and facilities,
providing for the establishment, maintenance,
protection, and conservation of communal forests
18

and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves,

and other similar forest development projects and,
subject to existing laws, establishing and providing
for the maintenance, repair and operation of an
efficient waterworks system to supply water for the
inhabitants and purifying the source of the water
supply; regulating the construction, maintenance,
repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and
reservoirs; protecting the purity and quantity of the
water supply of the municipality and, for this
purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate
ordinances over all territory within the drainage area
of said water supply and within one hundred (100)
meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct,
pumping station, or watershed used in connection
with the water service; and regulating the
consumption, use or wastage of water. [Section 447
(5)(i) & (vii)]
Under the Local Government Code, therefore,
two requisites must be met before a national
project that affects the environmental and
ecological balance of local communities can be
implemented:
prior consultation with
the
affected
local
communities,
and
prior approval of
the
project
by
the
appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these
mandatory
requirements,
the
projects
implementation is illegal. (Emphasis added.)
Based on the above, therefore, prior consultations
and prior approval are required by law to have been
conducted
and
secured
by
the
respondent
Province. Accordingly, the information dissemination conducted
months after the ECC had already been issued was insufficient to
comply with this requirement under the Local Government
Code. Had they been conducted properly, the prior public
consultation should have considered the ecological or
environmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied measures
alternative to the project, to avoid or minimize adverse
environmental impact or damage. In fact, respondent Province
once tried to obtain the favorable endorsement of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Malay, but this was denied by the latter.
Moreover, DENR DAO 2003-30 provides:
5.3

Public Hearing / Consultation Requirements

19

For projects under Category A-1, the

conduct of public hearing as part of the EIS review
is mandatory unless otherwise determined by
EMB. For all other undertakings, a public hearing is
not mandatory unless specifically required by EMB.
Proponents should initiate public
consultations early in order to ensure that
environmentally
relevant
concerns
of
stakeholders are taken into consideration in the
EIA study and the formulation of the
management plan. All public consultations and
public hearings conducted during the EIA process
are
to
be
documented. The public
hearing/consultation Process report shall be
validated by the EMB/EMB RD and shall constitute
part of the records of the EIA process. (Emphasis
supplied.)
In essence, the above-quoted rule shows that in cases requiring
public consultations, the same should be initiated early so that
concerns of stakeholders could be taken into consideration in the
EIA study. In this case, respondent Province had already filed its
ECC application before it met with the local government units of
Malay and Caticlan.
40. Precisely because of the failure to consult the affected communities and get
the approval of the local sanggunian for the Project that, undoubtedly, will
increase pollution in and near the locality and the surrounding environs, the
Davao City Council was forced to issue its Resolution expressing it objection to
the project on 14 December 2015.
41. The move of the Respondents to exclude public participation in the
affected communities, including the Petitioners, denies the latter the
opportunity to voice out the costs to their lives and to the environment of the
Project that may not have been taken into consideration by the proponents in
their valuation of the Project. These are legitimate concerns that, as pointed out
by Justice Leonen, ought to be made part of the cost equation, to wit:
These provisions represent, in no small measure, a shift in
the concept of governance in relation to societys health. It is a
recognition that if private actors and entities are left to
themselves, they will pursuer motivations which may not be too
advantageous to nutrition or able to reduce the risks of traditional
and modern diseases. At best, the actors may not be aware of
their incremental contributions to increasing risks. At worse, there
may be conscious efforts to examine health consequences of
products and processes introduced in the market. It is expedient

20

for most to consider such costs as extraneous and affecting their

final profit margins.
In short, the constitutional provisions embed the idea that
there is no invisible hand that guides participants in the economic
market to move toward optimal social welfare in its broadest
developmental sense.
Producers, by their very nature, participate in the market
motivated by their objective to recover costs and maximize their
profits. Costs for them usually refer to their pecuniary
expenditures. Costs suffered incidentally by the ecology of the
locations of their factories or by the health of their consumers are
not costs which producers readily and naturally internalize. In an
unregulated market, they do not spend their capital to mitigate or
remedy these types of damages. In many instances, there is the
tendency even to avoid incurring expense to find out whether
these types of damages actually occur. Environmental damage and
health risks are, thus, externalities which are usually invisible to
them. Externalities are costs which remain unrecognized in the
private transaction between the producers and their consumers. 33
42. Aside from the failure to conduct the necessary consultations and to secure
the approval of the local government, Respondents are bent on keeping the
whole bidding process secret such that instead of making the bidding public, it
has imposed the rule of confidentiality and for such purpose has restricted
internet access of the public to the documents and announcements with respect
thereto.
43. Thus, Section 3.7 of the Instructions to Prospective Bidders state the rule
on confidentiality thus:
3.7 Confidentiality
The Invitation Documents provided by the DOTC and the PPA
are being made available to Prospective Bidders only in
connection with the Project and may not be disclosed or used
other than for purposes of Bidding. Information relating to the
examination, clarification, evaluation and comparison of PreQualification Documents shall not be disclosed to any of the
Prospective Bidders or other persons not officially involved in the
Bidding Process; provided that the DOTC and the PPA, including
the PBAC, shall not have the obligation to keep any information
submitted by a Prospective Bidder confidential after award of the
Project.

See Leonen, J. Dissenting Opinion in International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Inc. (G.R. No. 209271; 8 December 2015).
33

21

44. On the other hand, when the links in Respondent DOTCs website
pertaining to the bidding for the Project are clicked, what appears on the screen
is a notification that You dont have permission to access the information
represented by the link. Following are some of the samples:

Forbidden
You
dont
have
permission
to
access/images/PPP/2015/P17BDavaoSasaPortMP/DavaoSasaG
BB17-2016.pdf ;

Forbidden
You dont have permission to
access/images/Public_Bidding/MemoCOMELEC_ProjectExemption.pdf on this server.
45. From the foregoing, not only have Respondents failed to consult the
stakeholders, they are determined to exclude the public from accessing
information and proceedings relating to the Project in violation of Petitioners
right to information on matters of public concern a right that is critical in
their proper exercise of the right to public participation under Sections 26 of
the Local Government Code.
46. Aside therefrom, the Regional Development Council of Region XI has
imposed certain conditions in its approval of the Project among which are:
a) Acquisition of additional 6.2 hectares of right-of-way per
NEDA-ICCs recommendation shall be secured immediately;
b) Ensure that appropriate compensation is paid for the private
properties that will be acquired as additional right of way;
c) Specify in the Terms of Reference (TOR) who will shoulder the
payment of the Real Property Tax;
d) Ensure the proper relocation/resettlement of informal settlers
affected by the Project; and,
e) Ensure that in the implementation of the Project concerned
parties shall benefit not only the private operator but to include
the port users in the form of better and affordable services, and,
more importantly, opportunities for sustainable employment and
entrepreneurial activities of the people of Davao Region resulting
from the operations of the port.
47. It appears that the acquisition of the right of way and the
relocation/resettlement of the informal settlers have not been complied with by
the Respondents, and yet, they are already in the final stretch of the bidding
process, and the award and implementation of the Project.

22

Applicability of the Precautionary

Principle and Necessity for the Issuance
of
the
Temporary
Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO)
48. Given the inevitability of negative environmental impacts of the proposed
expansion of the Davao Sasa port and its operations, Petitioners beseech the
Honorable Court to apply the Precautionary Principle and issue a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) against the bidding, award and
implementation of the Project.
49. The principle finds application in this case especially since, aside from the
target of 1.2 million TEU capacity comprising among others the construction
of a new apron, linear quay, expansion of the back-up area, container yards,
warehouses and the installation of new container handling equipment,
Petitioners are completely without any information as to what, eventually, will
be the actual design of the Project. Without the actual design, the effect of the
expanded port as well as its accompanying operations will be difficult to predict
especially with respect to the foreshores surrounding the Project. This thus
brings about an uncertainty in the sense that the predictive purpose of the EIA
process is defeated and mitigation measures become merely theoretical.
50. Nevertheless, there is no question that port operations, in this case, the
proposed port expansion in the physical structures and in its traffic capacity,
are certain to bring about serious and irreversible harm on the marine life and
the foreshores that need to be mitigated.
51. In this case, the features necessary for the application of the precautionary
principle are present. As enunciated by the Honorable Court in the case of
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace
Southeast Asia, Inc., the principle applies when:
Under this Rule, the precautionary principle finds direct
application in the evaluation of evidence in cases before the
courts. The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases
wherein scientific certainty in factual findings cannot be achieved.
By applying the precautionary principle, the court may construe a
set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with
the goal of preserving and protecting the environment. This may
be further evinced from the second paragraph where bias is
created in favor of the constitutional right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology. In effect, the precautionary
principle shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from those
likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status
quo. An application of the precautionary principle to the rules on
evidence will enable courts to tackle future environmental
problems before ironclad scientific consensus emerges.

23

For purposes of evidence, the precautionary principle

should be treated as a principle of last resort, where application of
the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an inequitable result
for the environmental plaintiff (a) settings in which the risks of
harm are uncertain; (b) settings in which harm might be
irreversible and what is lost is irrepleaceable; and (c) settings in
which the harm that might result would be serious. When these
features uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and
possibility of serious harm coincide, the case for the
precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases must be
resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology. Parenthetically, judicial adjudication is one of
the strongest for a in which the precautionary principle may find
applicability.
52. Given the foregoing and the fact that the Bid Submission is due on 28
March 2016 and the award may be made immediately after the opening of the
bids, Petitioners respectfully submit that the issuance of a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and of a writ of Kalikasan upon the
filing of this case are warranted.
PRAYER
PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioners respectfully pray for the
Honorable Court to:
1. Immediately upon filing of this case, to issue:
a) A Writ of Kalikasan directing the Respondents to submit
their Answer to the Petition within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof; and
b) A Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
directing the Respondents to Cease and Desist from
Implementing the Project including the bidding and award
thereof.
2. Upon trial on the merits, to render judgment converting the TEPO
into a Writ of Continuing Mandamus ordering the Respondents to comply with
the mandatory provisions of the law under the Philippine Environmental
Impact Statement System and Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government
Code of 1991.
Petitioners pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the
premises.
Makati City for Manila

24

 14 March 2016.
ROQUE & BUTUYAN LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Petitioners
Unit 1904, Antel 2000 Corporate Center
121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village
1200 Makati City
Email: mail@roquebutuyan.com
Tel. Nos. 887-4445 / 887-3894
Fax No: 887-3893
By:

H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR.

Roll No. 36976
PTR No. 5334537| Jan. 11, 2016 | Makati
IBP No. 01749 | Lifetime
MCLE Exemption No.IV-000513 | Feb. 15, 2013

JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN

Roll No. 36911
PTR No. 5334536 | Jan. 11, 2016 | Makati
IBP No. 01742 | Lifetime
MCLE Compliance No. V-0013082 / Jan. 12, 2016

ROGER R. RAYEL
Roll No. 44106
PTR No. 2208483/ Jan. 7, 2016 Quezon City
IBP No. 02159 / Lifetime
MCLE Compliance No.IV-017519 / Apr. 19, 2013
EXPLANATION
A copy of the foregoing petition was served by registered mail to the
respondents due to time, distance and manpower constraints.

ROGER R. RAYEL

25

Copy furnished:
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City
HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA
The Columbia Tower, Ortigas Avenue
Barangay Wack-Wack, Mandaluyong City
1555 Metro Manila.
THE
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNICATION
The Columbia Tower, Ortigas Avenue
Barangay Wack-Wack, Mandaluyong City
1555 Metro Manila.

AND

THE PRE-QUALIFICTION, BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE

Chairmans Office,
Unit 164, 16/F, The Columbia Tower
Ortigas Avenue, Barangay Wack-Wack
Mandaluyong City, 1555 Metro Manila
THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY
Bonifacio Drive, South Harbor Port Area
Manila City

26